Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 02, 2006 05:14 PM
Don't you think that this was this post was unnecessarily insulting? An ad hominem is not going to improve your argument, it just shows you are a jerk. I can see that you are having a bad day, but taking it out on other people is not going to solve anything.
It is a valid point that most people can't get Windows patched without connecting to the internet, so they must at least for a while connect with an unpatched box (to download the patches). I understand asking a sysadmin to find a way around this, but not home users. A user has the right to install an operating system and expect it to work for without getting viruses just because they plugged the network cable is. This level of risk is unique to Windows, and it shows that the system is insecure (notice my words, I said "level" of risk, I didn't say that other systems are completely flawless, I say that they have a much lower level of risk).
>> Any experienced Windows user knows this.
I don't use Windows, so I can't say, but I know several Windows users that I expect are experienced and they don't seem to do all of that. The fact that so much work is needed before you even connect to the internet shows that there really is a problem with Windows.
> (1) Users are NOT educated in basic security > concepts and measures. They will click on > anything. Its like giving an 8 yr old a 9mm > handgun.
I'll use my family as an example. They are quite educated about security, they don't click on anything, they don't use Internet Explorer, they use a firewall, anti spyware, anti virus, and all sorts of security measures, and their Windows computers still get infenced. One of them has become completely useless. At the same time, their Linux computer works perfectly.
A user should not have to get a PhD in system security to use a computer. In any other market a user has a reasonable expectation to have a functioning product that won't cause harm. If it does, it's called a defect, and the supplier must pay for damages. If a toaster sets the kitchen on fire you wouldn't blame the user. It is unfair to blame the user for not managing to use securely a product which is insecure.
As for the gun comment; guns are dangerous. If Windows is like a gun, Windows is dangerous.
>> (2) No robust security mechanisms are built in by default.
That's exactly what the poster said. Windows is insecure.
>> (3) You can't run crap without using the admin account,
I also consider this a security bug in Windows. Proper security is one that makes it easy for users to do the right thing and hard to do the wrong thing. Take for example Ubuntu or Mac OS X. Users run as regular users, not as admin. And they can still manage to do the system. I don't know about Mac OS X, but in Ubuntu you can't even log in as root; the root account is disabled, so you have to use sudo (or the GUI version of it). Ubuntu is a system that makes it easy to use the computer securely, and hard to use it insecurely. This is an important aspect of security, and one that Windows misses.
>> (4) Microsoft's slow response to security patches.
You are agreeing with the previous post again. Windows is insecure, and it's not the user's fault. It's not fair to blame the user when the problem is that Windows makes it hard to use the computer securely, Microsoft is slow to release patches, and a brand new computer will be compromised in 60 seconds if you plug it to the itnernet. These things are Microsoft's fault, not the user's.
>> (5) Microsoft's continued insistence of using crap like Outlook,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
This is one instance where at least the user can do something, they can use something else (this, of course, doesn't excuse Microsoft).
>> (6) WinXP is old as crap.
* This is not the user's fault. * When you buy WinXP today, does it come with SP2? It should... * Personally I expect that a 6 year-old Linux distribution to be more secure that WinXP (but less secure than a modern Linux distro).
>> Its simple logic, prepare your boxes before you go on the web.
Actually, it isn't. The fact that you need to do this is a testimony to low product security. It is not simple logic that you need to check your TV before plugging it in, or that you need to take your car to the mechanic before driving it for the first time. Buyers of any product sold on a shelf have a reasonable expectation of that product working correctly, at least for a little while, unless the product is labeled as "second hand" or something like that.
Now, I'd like to suggest that you take a break from the computer and try to calm down a little. Take time to deal with whatever life issues are making you upset, and come back when you are willing to talk like an adult.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Calm down
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 02, 2006 05:14 PMIt is a valid point that most people can't get Windows patched without connecting to the internet, so they must at least for a while connect with an unpatched box (to download the patches). I understand asking a sysadmin to find a way around this, but not home users. A user has the right to install an operating system and expect it to work for without getting viruses just because they plugged the network cable is. This level of risk is unique to Windows, and it shows that the system is insecure (notice my words, I said "level" of risk, I didn't say that other systems are completely flawless, I say that they have a much lower level of risk).
>> Any experienced Windows user knows this.
I don't use Windows, so I can't say, but I know several Windows users that I expect are experienced and they don't seem to do all of that. The fact that so much work is needed before you even connect to the internet shows that there really is a problem with Windows.
> (1) Users are NOT educated in basic security
> concepts and measures. They will click on
> anything. Its like giving an 8 yr old a 9mm
> handgun.
I'll use my family as an example. They are quite educated about security, they don't click on anything, they don't use Internet Explorer, they use a firewall, anti spyware, anti virus, and all sorts of security measures, and their Windows computers still get infenced. One of them has become completely useless. At the same time, their Linux computer works perfectly.
A user should not have to get a PhD in system security to use a computer. In any other market a user has a reasonable expectation to have a functioning product that won't cause harm. If it does, it's called a defect, and the supplier must pay for damages. If a toaster sets the kitchen on fire you wouldn't blame the user. It is unfair to blame the user for not managing to use securely a product which is insecure.
As for the gun comment; guns are dangerous. If Windows is like a gun, Windows is dangerous.
>> (2) No robust security mechanisms are built in by default.
That's exactly what the poster said. Windows is insecure.
>> (3) You can't run crap without using the admin account,
I also consider this a security bug in Windows. Proper security is one that makes it easy for users to do the right thing and hard to do the wrong thing. Take for example Ubuntu or Mac OS X. Users run as regular users, not as admin. And they can still manage to do the system. I don't know about Mac OS X, but in Ubuntu you can't even log in as root; the root account is disabled, so you have to use sudo (or the GUI version of it). Ubuntu is a system that makes it easy to use the computer securely, and hard to use it insecurely. This is an important aspect of security, and one that Windows misses.
>> (4) Microsoft's slow response to security patches.
You are agreeing with the previous post again. Windows is insecure, and it's not the user's fault. It's not fair to blame the user when the problem is that Windows makes it hard to use the computer securely, Microsoft is slow to release patches, and a brand new computer will be compromised in 60 seconds if you plug it to the itnernet. These things are Microsoft's fault, not the user's.
>> (5) Microsoft's continued insistence of using crap like Outlook,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
This is one instance where at least the user can do something, they can use something else (this, of course, doesn't excuse Microsoft).
>> (6) WinXP is old as crap.
* This is not the user's fault.
* When you buy WinXP today, does it come with SP2? It should...
* Personally I expect that a 6 year-old Linux distribution to be more secure that WinXP (but less secure than a modern Linux distro).
>> Its simple logic, prepare your boxes before you go on the web.
Actually, it isn't. The fact that you need to do this is a testimony to low product security. It is not simple logic that you need to check your TV before plugging it in, or that you need to take your car to the mechanic before driving it for the first time. Buyers of any product sold on a shelf have a reasonable expectation of that product working correctly, at least for a little while, unless the product is labeled as "second hand" or something like that.
Now, I'd like to suggest that you take a break from the computer and try to calm down a little. Take time to deal with whatever life issues are making you upset, and come back when you are willing to talk like an adult.
#